Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

Now I have a doubt in Revelation 20:10: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever"

The sentence that I highlighted don't have the verb are. I have read in another place, that the translators inserted it to make sense. My question is: the verse could be instead translated as: "where the beast and the false prophet were casted"? Why the translators renders the verse with "are"?

Thanks in advance!

Last edited by kalunga on Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kalunga wrote:The sentence that I highlighted don't have the verb are. I have readed in another place, that the translators inserted it to make sense.

The translators didn't insert it to make sense out of the text but to have it make sense in English. In Greek it makes sense without a verb.

kalunga wrote: My question is: the verse could be instead translated as: "where the beast and the false prophet were casted"? Why the translators renders the verse with "are"?

Thanks in advance!

"Are" (or "were") is the most likely meaning. It is very common for forms of Îµá¼°Î¼á½· to be left out of a sentence (I would think more common than any other verb.) "Were cast" is fine as well though. Only because we know from the broader context that that is what happened. Without this context we would not know that. We would not have any idea how the beast and the false prophet got there; Maybe they lived there or hid there or jumped in. Then simply "were" would be better.

Bert wrote:The translators didn't insert it to make sense out of the text but to have it make sense in English. In Greek it makes sense without a verb.

Hum.. Ok!

Bert wrote:"Are" (or "were") is the most likely meaning. It is very common for forms of Îµá¼°Î¼á½· to be left out of a sentence (I would think more common than any other verb.) "Were cast" is fine as well though. Only because we know from the broader context that that is what happened. Without this context we would not know that. We would not have any idea how the beast and the false prophet got there; Maybe they lived there or hid there or jumped in. Then simply "were" would be better.

Hum... I sugested "were casted", because the last verb was "was cast", and somebody told me that some verbs could be omited if they were repeated... I don't know if it is the case, because one here is singular, and the other should be plural. This person cited Luke 1:64.

In the case of the translation use "were casted", we could not say that they are still in there, couldn't we?

kalunga wrote: Hum... I sugested "were casted", because the last verb was "was cast", and somebody told me that some verbs could be omited if they were repeated... I don't know if it is the case, because one here is singular, and the other should be plural. This person cited Luke 1:64.

Yes that's right, and it does not matter that the expressed verb is singular and the implied verb would have to be plural. I am starting to think that the ÎºÎ±á½· right after á½…Ï€Î¿Ï… may indicate that 'were cast' is intended.

kalunga wrote:In the case of the translation use "were casted", we could not say that they are still in there, couldn't we?

Probably not just from that sentence but the very next verb is plural so that tells us that they are still there.

Bert wrote:Only because we know from the broader context that that is what happened. Without this context we would not know that.

Sometimes â€” but not here, alas â€” the relative could give you a clue, since Greek distinguishes "to where, at where" and "from where." We get no help here because, if the dictionary at the end of my edition of the NT is correct, Koine lost the "to where" set (Ï€Î¿á¿–; á½…Ï€Î¿Î¹) and made the "at where" set (Ï€Î¿á¿¦; á½…Ï€Î¿Ï…) do duty for both.

Hum... I've noticed that when the writers want to use ballo to express throwing to a place, they always use eis. If the writer intend to use "were casted", the use of opou make unnecessary the use of eis? It works like an adverb/conjunction and a preposition?

Last edited by kalunga on Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hum... I've noticed that when the writers want to use ballo to express throwing to a place, they always use eis. If the writer intend to use "were casted", the use of opou make unnecessary the use of eis? It works like an adverb/conjunction and a preposition?

I don't think that the "á½…Ï€Î¿Ï…" has anything to do with that. Instead of saying that "were cast" was intended we could say "were cast into".
(There is a verb Îµá¼±ÏƒÎ²á½±Î»Î»Ï‰ but it is not used in the GNT.)
Îµá¼´Ï‚ is primarily a preposition. I can't find where it is used as an adverb but I guess it is possible. Most (all?) prepositions were adverbs at one time. It is not a conjunction though.

I have a book that indicate that opou in this sentence, works as a conjunction. That's because they understand that the sentence is a subordinate sentence, explaining wich "lake of fire and brimstone" is. And is the conjunctions that introducts subordinate sentences...

it's a "conjuction" if you consider "where" a conjuction ÏŒÏ€Î¿Ï… is a relative adverb that shows the place (wouldn't be able to rembember the term even if I tried). He casted the devil where the beast and the false prophet .... (are, were casted). In this particular case we can even translate it as "in the same place ".

ÎŒÏ€Î¿Ï… precludes the use of ÎµÎ¹Ï‚ here. Think of it like this:

I threw him in the pit. I threw him where he belonged. I threw him there.